intermod

Looks like about -119, which is low for VHF. If you have good coax then you are doing better than my area....

You may be one of the few. What does your SDR show for noise floor at 16 kHz bandwidth?

High noise floor, particularly in the metro and suburban areas, can be the controlling factor. This is primarily caused by microprocessors, associated clocks and switching power supplies in electronic products (including many LED light sources). This effectively deafens VHF receivers so that they are no longer as sensitive as they used to be. If you ever get a chance to use 700, 800 or 900 MHz, or even 1200 MHz, it will become immediately obvious. As was said above, while VHF propagates really well outdoors, in some cases the 700-1200 MHz bands can actually do better, except when the signal hits dirt (hill or mountain) or a dense foliage. Another factor to consider in VHF is portable antenna efficiency. Most portable radios are equipped with the 10" flexible helical antenna, versus something that more approximates a 1/4 wave length (18"). The 10" has an effective gain of -11 dBd. That takes a 2-watt MURS radio and degrades it to less than 0.2 watts. And it does the same to reception of signals......so VHF is really being hammered. UHF has become degraded but not as bad. But the antennas (for a given length) are more efficient.

IEEE TECH TALK: IS VHF DEAD? Date: 13 Feb 2024 Time: 05:30 PM to 06:50 PM Online Join link Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87613850683?pwd=VGhYQmxsU0dlbE5qRnMyS3o2Vmxqdz09 Meeting ID: 876 1385 0683 Passcode: IEEESEA https://events.vtools.ieee.org/m/401815

Linking repeaters through the Internet, or via a private broadband connection (private point-to-point microwave radio, like using Ubiquity radios) is not prohibited by the rules. The FCC rep's opinion in the video is “hearsay” and is not considered authoritative. The female rep even notes this earlier. Here is a brief tutorial on this matter. § 95.349 Network connection. Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749. Fact 1: The Internet is not a “public switched network”. § 47CFR § 9.3 - Definitions. Public Switched Network. Any common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that uses the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services. Fact 2: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not considered a “Common Carriers”. They were between 2015-2017, when Net Neutrality was in place. Net Neutrality was eliminated in 2017. § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745. § 95.303 Definitions. Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control. § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. Fact 3: While “control” or “remote control” normally refers to the act of enabling or disabling the ability of a transmitter to “activate”, the term “operation by remote control” refers to people using the repeater remotely. Conclusion: Linking GMRS repeaters through the Internet is not prohibited. Linking through a private connection (not routing through the internet) is certainly fine as well. Just don't install an autopatch on GMRS. If anyone is aware of a formal case where a licensee received a formal NOV for linking after 2017, please let us know. I suspect one does not exist. What typically occurs is that an NOV is issued for harmful or destructive interference (IX). For example, if I operate a repeater in Boston, which activates a repeater in California, and the California repeater walks on top of another local repeater, then we have harmful IX. This is a violation. Not the linking.

Does the FW need to be removed, or can he just program a conventional channel in them and go with that? Or does CP preclude programming a conventional channel?

Good recommendation when using those model for repeater operation. But if/when the transmitting radio fails, just swap the radios around.

See attached model number chart. These are 450-512 MHz models. These will work on GMRS but not amateur. I have many XPR4550 radios and a few 5550. They have superior receivers from a susceptiility/overload perspective. They are perfect radios for creating a repeater. Their accessory outputs are easy to program. They have a design flaw where their accessory port output of low frequency CTCSS codes (below 114.8 Hz) or DCS are poor. But that is fine. Not sure about cables. XPR 4550 Model Number Chart.pdf

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all.

The General Welfare clause amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers of the subsequent clauses of the same Section. How could this be any other way? If "general welfare" was interpreted to mean virtually anything, it would destroy the entire concept of limited (federal) government and justify expenditures in any field. Limited (federal) government was one of the primary goals of the Founders. However, I get that this has been the interpretation for a long time (re: Butler Case, 1936). I wonder if this has had any impact on our national debt?

Uh - you followed *me* here. Please add me to the list. OffroaderX can't be too bad if he studies the Constitution. Did you have any comments on what in our Constitution authorizes the FCC to exist?

Excellent term. Agree - such topics are truly meant to trigger g-m. Its so effective.....

I though this was just someone messing with the camera - but then I heard the voice modulation in the recording....cool. Further - Imagine if the Great State of California tried to manage radio spectrum.

Agree that some bands that are used over state lines need general administration - or those that involve life-safety. Spurious are the same as non-spurious: if they don't cross a border, then its not their responsibility. This is not a binary choice (regulation versus free-for-all). Each state may have unique wireless needs that they could address - interior to the state - away from the edges - that would add flexibility.

Correct, but any law in violation of the Constitution is null and void on its face ("pretend legislation").